This week at SCOTUS: The Court denied cert. in King on April 29. Additionally, a new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Hale v. United States, No. 18-1383, on May 2, 2019. In United States v. Hale, 78 M.J. 268 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a majority of CAAF found that evidence of conduct that was not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ was properly used to prove intent associated with conduct that was subject to prosecution. The petition presents the following questions:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on factual sufficiency of the evidence to resolve a question of plain error, where the alleged error related to a legal defect in jurisdiction.

2. Whether instructions focusing “on or about” the charged dates invited a general verdict based on conduct outside of the court-martial’s jurisdiction.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will not hold oral arguments on May 7-8, 2019. The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on May 21, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments. 

One Response to “This Week in Military Justice – May 5, 2019”

  1. Vulture says:

    SeñorTC: 
    I think that I owe you are response. 
    By the circumstances that you suggest, here was Lt. Behenna with a grenade, a pistol, and now a knife.  I would have sarcastically said “Well, he was just a regular Rambo.”  I’d have recalled the reference to South Park.  I would have quipped, “If you can’t make your facts solid enough to gel, make them slimy enough to stick.”  I’d say “Worry less about how much you look like Pam Grier and how much you look like Sarah Huckabby Sanders.”
     
    I think that your position isn’t just factually dysfunctional, I think it is comical.  I think that government position is comical.   You understand this because you turned right to the Jack Bauer reference.
     
    But what I really think, and the point that I am getting at, is that for all the accolades that stood to Behenna’s benefit, for all the generals, and capable attorneys, and amicus, how did the US v. Behenna resolve to the point that THIS present course of action took place.  So much sense could have been made elsewhere.  I don’t know Don Reykopf, but I have met some of his other representation.  They stuck me as level headed, thoughtful people.  Why is it that their industry could not have remedied this error?  How did the safeguards fail so profoundly.
     
    I hear that Behenna is a ranch hand now.  I live in a place where cows get out from time to time.  It’s the best place I have ever been, and I hope that Behenna can find some peace in a similiar place.

Leave a Reply